2016 Postmortem

emulatorloo

(44,049 posts)

89. Of course this isn't LBN. Doesn't make your headline any less fake. Nor does it make

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 01:58 PM

Jun 2016

your spin and speculation fact.

1. The FBI is investigating.

2. They aren't leaking.

3. All talk about the FBI's report is speculation, because the FBI is not leaking.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Newly released FBI documents shows Petraeus disclosures less damaging than Clinton emails [View all] leveymg Jun 2016 OP

Only 5 days left ... then enough of this nonsense n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #1

I wanted to be first DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #2

It worked for Richard Bruce Cheney et. al. and now you embrace it too-how sickening. bobthedrummer Jun 2016 #121

It is sickening that people , wittingly or unwittingly, enable Trump. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #131

How do you know it's nonsense? You responded one minute after the OP went up. leveymg Jun 2016 #5

Nonsense ... as it continuing to throw crap up against the wall OP after OP SFnomad Jun 2016 #14

Like a smear artist saying the same thing over and over again. Octafish Jun 2016 #69

No body gives a shit let alone read all that bull upaloopa Jun 2016 #28

People interested in learning will read it. Octafish Jun 2016 #109

I love it when laypersons try to talk about legal concepts Gothmog Jun 2016 #59

Will the FBI investigation be done in five days? panader0 Jun 2016 #19

Maybe you should read post #14 n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #20

I am sure that the investigation will continue to be REAL NEWS for a while, panader0 Jun 2016 #25

To some extent .. but if someone is posting negative article after negative article SFnomad Jun 2016 #30

Legit criticism will be allowed pinebox Jun 2016 #32

No, this is the speculation of a layperson who does not understand the legal concepts Gothmog Jun 2016 #66

Who exactly is a layperson? Separation Jun 2016 #135

A non lawyer Gothmog Jun 2016 #136

No I specifically left the definition of layperson in my previous reply to you. Separation Jun 2016 #140

Intent will be, or has already, been proved. panader0 Jun 2016 #157

No evidence of intent has been found so far Gothmog Jun 2016 #163

I hope you open your eyes and realize that this issue... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #48

For reasons I cannot fathom, no one seems care about the risk. merrily Jun 2016 #60

If the presumptive nominee can be persuaded to withdraw... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #151

One poster who has been beating beating this dead horse has already been flagged. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #33

It's not a "dead horse" until the investigations are over panader0 Jun 2016 #42

If she is not found guilty of a crime she is "exonerated" DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #44

I guess the nuances are lost on you. panader0 Jun 2016 #46

Nuance isn't lost on DSB DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #57

She can't be "exonerated." The State Dept has already found she broke dozens of regulations. The leveymg Jun 2016 #67

Why are you scared to take my wager? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #74

I'll take you up on that. Separation Jun 2016 #143

Really? Dozens? apcalc Jun 2016 #127

I started to compile a list when the IG report came out, but didn't get even half way through. leveymg Jun 2016 #134

he he he snort. We need a knee slapping emoticon notadmblnd Jun 2016 #160

Discussing this issue is the antithesis of "Trump enabling"... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #50

We'll see... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #64

This has nothing to do with Sanders...it has everything to do with the Dem Party... tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #71

This one's at the top MFM008 Jun 2016 #102

This isn't nonsense, it's a REAL thing that is HAPPENING pinebox Jun 2016 #31

Lol! zappaman Jun 2016 #81

Psssst! The FBI isn't subject to DU's Terms of Usage RufusTFirefly Jun 2016 #56

Can we compare calendars? I was counting six... brooklynite Jun 2016 #65

Yeah, somehow I thought it was Friday already ... long week n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #85

Its gonna be a looooong 5 days workinclasszero Jun 2016 #82

You got that right! apcalc Jun 2016 #126

Oopsie. avaistheone1 Jun 2016 #148

And you can hide your head in the sand... Herman4747 Jun 2016 #149

Still a lot of bitter sore losers ... guess it will take a while to get over it n/t SFnomad Jun 2016 #159

No damage has yet been attributed to Clinton's e-mails. n/t Orsino Jun 2016 #3

With 2,200 classified emails over an uncertified server, including 22 TS-SAP, that is not damaging? leveymg Jun 2016 #7

Was that released to unauthorized people who could do us harm? Don't think so. Hoyt Jun 2016 #10

Actually Bill Clinton's personal aide who had access to the server NWCorona Jun 2016 #12

It was released by unauthorized people in emails to her. It was a felony for HRC to not report them. leveymg Jun 2016 #13

Yup! Hillary had a legal obligation to fill out spillage reports on quite a few emails NWCorona Jun 2016 #17

We've been through this before, you can site code section over & over, doesn't make it a violation. Hoyt Jun 2016 #18

Please ask your interlocutor why he won't accept my "loser leaves DU" wager. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #26

The acts fit the statute cited. The facts are well-known. She violated the law. leveymg Jun 2016 #29

LOLOL grasswire Jun 2016 #35

You guys' interpretation of law and circumstances are wrong. I get how badly you want it to be true. Hoyt Jun 2016 #49

So how are those "guys'" interpretations wrong? Maybe you could be more specific...nt tex-wyo-dem Jun 2016 #54

Give us specific facts, not another condescending lecture, please. nt leveymg Jun 2016 #62

Read law, but not looking for a way to pin something on Clinton. My guess, Obama would not endorse Hoyt Jun 2016 #111

I have long expected he would follow the Deutch example. leveymg Jun 2016 #114

You just keep getting wilder with BS. Read what poster told you below -- No Intent, No Indictment. Hoyt Jun 2016 #115

You're still on the case with this, I see. brush Jun 2016 #72

omg. You don't read the newspapers do you? leveymg Jun 2016 #88

You don't watch TV news do you? brush Jun 2016 #91

I've said for a long time that I don't expect DOJ to actually indict her. I do believe the FBI leveymg Jun 2016 #93

Again, thank you for the laughs Gothmog Jun 2016 #105

"Some Or All" Of Clinton Emails Designated SAP Referenced Public Information About U.S. Drone Strike Gothmog Jun 2016 #104

"Defense information" is much broader than classification... Orsino Jun 2016 #161

Allow me to correct this for you. Exilednight Jun 2016 #8

Yep. If disclosure is found to have occurred, as with Petraeus... Orsino Jun 2016 #11

Known to the intelligence agencies that originally classified the information. leveymg Jun 2016 #16

Except damage to Clinton's electability. n/t Herman4747 Jun 2016 #153

Show some respect for the dead, will you? randome Jun 2016 #4

And one should show respect for dead horses as well DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #6

Lol MFM008 Jun 2016 #103

The difference.. DCBob Jun 2016 #9

Actually, if you read the FBI warrant application, she had a security clearance, and she was author- leveymg Jun 2016 #23

I read the issue with providing classified information to his lover (security clearance or not) DCBob Jun 2016 #27

just wrong. grasswire Jun 2016 #38

The fact is she is not going to be indicted. DCBob Jun 2016 #41

say it three times... grasswire Jun 2016 #45

Same goes for you and the others praying for the indictment fairy . DCBob Jun 2016 #47

How can she avoid indictment? yourpaljoey Jun 2016 #15

LMFAO DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #21

It doesn't really matter if either of you guys stay or go. The larger questions are: jonno99 Jun 2016 #52

What will happen if a piano falls on my head? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #70

His AG, Loretta Lynch, will not indict now, even if the FBI recommends it to her. amandabeech Jun 2016 #96

I agree in part. leveymg Jun 2016 #100

I'm not sure if the President can pardon absent a trial or even an indictment. amandabeech Jun 2016 #107

The Presidential power of pardon is part of his Article II powers. He can pardon anyone, some argue leveymg Jun 2016 #112

Thank you for the nice summary. I' ve been off line for months. amandabeech Jun 2016 #124

Paul was in NZ for a while leveymg Jun 2016 #155

Perhaps many DUers will come to visit! n/t amandabeech Jun 2016 #168

I don't want to make another enemy. They are legion by now. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #132

None of that's going to happen. The news of the enquiry being concluded . . . brush Jun 2016 #141

good point, my pal joey. grasswire Jun 2016 #40

Cited article doesn't match your OP at all. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #22

Share with us how they differ? leveymg Jun 2016 #24

1) your headline is FAKE 2) and as usual your "spin" doesn't match the article. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #39

This isn't LBN. It's analysis of a news article and a document. I didn't "fake" anything. leveymg Jun 2016 #73

Of course this isn't LBN. Doesn't make your headline any less fake. Nor does it make emulatorloo Jun 2016 #89

We already know a vast number of facts the FBI will confirm because the State Dept, CIA and NSA have leveymg Jun 2016 #95

The stuff under the *** doesn't appear in the article at all...interesting. sharp_stick Jun 2016 #61

You seem to have the same reading issue as the guy above you. leveymg Jun 2016 #75

It's pathetic, that's all sharp_stick Jun 2016 #76

Pathetic. Why is it that you can't point to a single factual assertion that is any way in error? leveymg Jun 2016 #83

honestly, projecting "reading comprehension issues" on to others is not a winner for you. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #101

As I continue to say, if you have a problem with facts, correct me. Since you don't, that's telling leveymg Jun 2016 #108

Others in the threads are correcting you on the facts. You just deflect emulatorloo Jun 2016 #110

Give me one example. leveymg Jun 2016 #116

Gothmog's got some good stuff for you. Which you deal with by deflecting. emulatorloo Jun 2016 #119

Gothmog's full of empty bluster and ad hominem attacks. See #123, 129 below leveymg Jun 2016 #130

Your article guts and disproves your amusing theory on the need for culpable mental state Gothmog Jun 2016 #68

Once this is all over with and the FBI clears her of any illegal activity.. DCBob Jun 2016 #34

Do they have abstinence booths at adult film conventions? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #36

Ha! DCBob Jun 2016 #37

Do they serve liquor at temperance meetings? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #43

Are you kidding. Anyone who is posting these lies and innuendos MariaThinks Jun 2016 #51

Well, I guess I'm safe then. The FBI report certainly won't "clear her of any illegal leveymg Jun 2016 #98

Hanging on to the bitter end. DCBob Jun 2016 #99

Your analysis is totally wrong yet again-this article guts your theory that no mens rea is required Gothmog Jun 2016 #53

Petraeus was convicted of violating Sec. 1924, which requires specific intent. He was charged w/793 leveymg Jun 2016 #77

Petraeus signed over a dozen NDA or confidentiality agreements Gothmog Jun 2016 #86

The Libertarian candidate for vice president and former director of the criminal division of ... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #78

This is basic criminal law that is covered in the first your crim law class Gothmog Jun 2016 #87

When all you have is an animus toward Hillary Clinton and a failed candidate the whole world.... DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #90

The Espionage Act is not a strict liability law and so no indictment will be forthcoming Gothmog Jun 2016 #97

That is entirely about Sec. 1924, which requires intent, but in Sec. 793 "gross negligence" applies leveymg Jun 2016 #123

Laypersons are so amusing when they try to make legal arguments Gothmog Jun 2016 #125

Again, the officials who actually decide these issues disagree with your vox.com "expert" leveymg Jun 2016 #129

LOL DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #142

Have someone read that material posted and explain it to you Gothmog Jun 2016 #164

im so tired of propaganda in a dem forum. eom artyteacher Jun 2016 #55

You do realize that the stuff under the *** is not in the politico story sharp_stick Jun 2016 #58

I'll repeat what I said to a couple people above. This isn't LBN, it's analysis of an FBI document leveymg Jun 2016 #79

so did that woman who slept with Petraeus steal the recording? Article says he recorded it and it wa Sunlei Jun 2016 #63

June 16th Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #80

Bernie is tired of this crap workinclasszero Jun 2016 #84

FBI isn't tired. 840high Jun 2016 #92

The search for the Indictment Fairy continues. JoePhilly Jun 2016 #94

Wall street crimes are a boogeyman, single payer is a unicorn, & FBI investigations involve a fairy. think Jun 2016 #106

I realized last night that the last time Clintons were president Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #118

+1 I'm never buying into that NEW DEMOCRAT/Clinton cult again, Voice for Peace bobthedrummer Jun 2016 #120

yes, that was another score... the first black president indeed Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #122

lolz you guys obamanut2012 Jun 2016 #113

great stuff, keep it coming Voice for Peace Jun 2016 #117

Exactly WHO or WHAT was damage by Hillary's emails? napi21 Jun 2016 #128

No actual damage isn't a defense under the Espionage Act. Those who raised it were convicted. leveymg Jun 2016 #133

I understand your point on the DUI. That's true, it's against the law to drive under the influence. napi21 Jun 2016 #139

It is against the law, however, to place classified information on an uncertified server. leveymg Jun 2016 #158

This message was self-deleted by its author LexVegas Jun 2016 #137

I've been here a decade longer than you, and fully intend to remain for another decade. Delete yours leveymg Jun 2016 #138

Cut, paste, glue together with lots of words Sparkly Jun 2016 #144

Welcome to the Brave New World of blogging. No ink-stained wretches, just greasy keys, leveymg Jun 2016 #147

Yeah right! jcgoldie Jun 2016 #145

Thanks for a long, thoughtful OP, leveymg. senz Jun 2016 #146

Thanks for that. leveymg Jun 2016 #150

I like that "Ronan" very apt analogy. gordianot Jun 2016 #152

Well most of us are fed up with all the nasty comments senz Jun 2016 #154

That whole thing is a flat out lie or a misunderstanding of the law jzodda Jun 2016 #156

So you think the emails about drone strikes were the only ones on her server? pdsimdars Jun 2016 #165

Yes that's correct... jzodda Jun 2016 #167

Five days nt Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #162

This paragraph sums up Clinton to me pdsimdars Jun 2016 #166